Blog Stats

Archive for the ‘Globalization’ Category

It was Marx who had analyzed the phenomenon of capitalism when it was still nascent- foretelling its demise not so much because it was his wish, but pointing out that that the system is inherently unstable and full of contradictions. The Marxist conception of the State as an expression of class power is again vindicated by the manner in which the federal governments in leading capitalist countries- the US, UK, Japan, Australia and even the puny India- has stepped into the rescue and “buy” back sunk investments. It suits these governments to step out of business activities when it suits the latter, and step in when it suits them too, that is having the cake and eat it too! Noam Chomsky once called the US (that’s true of most capitalist countries) – socialism for the rich.

This of course, is not unprecedented. Again it was Marx (or Engels) who commented in the preface to the second edition of Das Capital, that the crisis of the capitalism system of production (not to say of distribution) is inherent because while production grows in geometrical progression, markets expand only in an arithmetic progression. Since then, the web of conflicts and contractions within the capitalist system has only grown more complex.

Carol P. Araullo, the chairperson of BAYAN, a large umbrella front of progressive and left-wing organizations in the Philippines, blogs on the food crisis and the culpability of President Gloria Arroyo of the Philippines:

But this time around, we can readily agree that the rice/food crisis is happening worldwide and its immediate causes and historical roots cannot be strictly confined to the specific policies and concrete situations obtaining in particular countries. Indeed, the international agribusiness cartels such as the small clique of corporations that control the world’s fertilizer and pesticide market, the largest seed companies (e.g. Monsanto), the largest grain traders (e.g. Cargill) and the world’s big food processors (e.g. Nestle), their local business partners in third world countries and the homegrown trading cartels (e.g. in rice) have made a killing in the midst of growing hunger, food riots and panic buying by governments and households.

Having said that, we reiterate that the Arroyo regime is not blameless, in fact it must own up to and be held accountable for the neoliberal policies and programs it has perpetuated and even accelerated in implementation that today aggravates the rice crisis.

I contend that today, no liberation project can limit itself to the national terrain, and that our struggles must be global if we are to achieve true liberation. Key to this is an understanding that capitalist sovereignty no longer resides at the level of individual nation-states, but rather, at the level of the global. This new form of global sovereignty, which some understand as neo-liberalism, is being administered by such institutions as the World Bank and World Trade Organisation. Multinational institutions such as these, along with nation-states, and multinational corporations all comprise this new neo-liberal world order. If we limit our struggles to the national terrain, we are, in effect, leaving the wider problem of the neo-liberal world order unattended to.

It seems to me that Marcosistas (as opposed to the real Zapatistas, who are, like the original Zapata, just fighting for their own lands and traditional – i.e. reactionary – way of life) either romanticize Revolution, or are foreigners, who look foreward to Mexican unrest to provide them with an object lesson for their own pet theories – or entertainment. Much the same as American conservatives and the “war on drugs/terror” they expect the Mexicans to do the fighting and dying for their political theories.

Economist Amit Bhaduri has an insightful article in EPW (pdf), where he argues for an alternative development model bypassing the corporate- led globalization. It is only the resistance of people at the ground level that seems to be working to thwart the current economic orthodoxy- that too, only when this resistance results in deaths as in Nandigram. If economics is nothing but concentrated politics, there is little to differentiate between the Hindutva BJP and the secular Left, to say nothing about the Congress party.

In spite of massive protests during Bush’s recent tour of Latin America, it’s not what the people want that counts. It’s what the big money wants. And the big money is out to crush Chavez, the Bolivarian Revolution, and any other Leftist regime that rears its head in Latin America.

The conflict between capitalism and the exploited masses of people in Latin America is going to loom ever larger in the coming decades, and the struggle promises to be a very nasty affair. Chavez will discover, like Castro, that the big money powers will stop at nothing to crush him.

barb howe of Lucky White Girl blogs about an editorial she read in the New York Times:

hey! what if the people controlled the resources? You know, the people who work with and use those resources? Is it so radical to think that the resources of the Earth should be used to the benefit of humanity (and a healthy earth is to the benefit of humanity mind you, lest I be accused of being species-centric! haha).

Nelson Hawkins, who does the blog Pottawatomie Creek, posts a speech by Jack O’Connor (president of SIFTU) to Sinn Féin, an Irish Republican party seeking the ouster of British troops from Northern Ireland and the unification of the island of Ireland:

This offensive is carried forward under the banner of market liberalisation, exploiting millions of vulnerable people who have no alternative but to work for half nothing. This assault is conducted with the assistance of a neo-liberal creed that depicts the world as locked in a battle between the Good Guys and the Bad Guys. The Good Guys are consumers and the Bad Guys are producers. The Good Guys are champions of free choice and competition, while the Bad Guys are protectors of selfish vested interests in this virtual universe. Naturally workers are among the Bad Guys.

In History is a Weapon blog the team at History is a Weapon posted a letter they wrote to the New York Times about a certain article that briefly touched on globalization:

Go around the world and you will see that one of our icons is Che, a revolutionary Argentinean who led a revolution in Cuba, before going off to fight in Africa and Bolivia. We meet at international meetings like the World Social Forum precisely because we believe that humanity’s solutions require a world conversation and transnational strategies. If you want “antiglobal,” go talk to the militias hiding in their bunkers from phantom conspiracies or the minutemen bullying the border.

On post for Choike, this blogger writes about the conference “Globalization and social exclusion: an alternative proposal for LGBTs” which was sponsored by the South/South Dialogue of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgender:

Rosario’s mention of the FTAA process elicited an intervention by Irene León, who expressed the opinion that globalization is not merely an economic problem and that it cannot be disassociated from other social concerns. The establishment of a treaty like the FTAA goes far beyond trade issues, she stated; it would imply new norms governing social life, directly affecting basic aspects such as the production of knowledge.

On post for Choike, this blogger writes about the conference “Globalization and social exclusion: an alternative proposal for LGBTs” which was sponsored by the South/South Dialogue of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgender:

Rosario’s mention of the FTAA process elicited an intervention by Irene León, who expressed the opinion that globalization is not merely an economic problem and that it cannot be disassociated from other social concerns. The establishment of a treaty like the FTAA goes far beyond trade issues, she stated; it would imply new norms governing social life, directly affecting basic aspects such as the production of knowledge.